Implications for credible minimum deterrence: PK Iyengar and other
signatories

By Express News Service

* 19 Dec 2009 01:29:00 AM IST***

SOON after the Pokhran-II tests on 11 May 1998, the scientists of the two
organisations concerned _ the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the
Defense R&D Organisation (DRDO) _ had jointly evaluated the success of the
two tests _ the fission device (A – bomb) and the fusion device (H – bomb).
While former device performed perfectly, including creating a crater of the
expected size, the fusion device failed on many counts _ very low yield, no
crater etc.
International monitoring centres also recorded low intensity of shock waves,
resulting in low yield estimates _ estimates that were more in consonance
with the DRDO numbers. This was discussed among the BARC and DRDO scientists
involved _ and resulted in a dispute between them.
A detailed report submitted by DRDO to the Government fully corroborated its
original assessment ,viz. ,that, while the fission device worked
successfully as expected, the fusion device did not.
The recent revelations by K Santhanam, who was in charge of all of DRDO’s
activities at the site, testifies to this. By all accounts _ geological,
radiochemical as well as seismic – it is now quite clear that the fusion
device yielded a very low value of explosive power.
The articles by K Santhanam and Ashok Parthasarathi in `The Hindu’
(September 17 , 2009) and P K Iyengar in `Outlook’ (October 26, 2009) go
into considerable technical detail and present a credible case, beyond all
reasonable doubt, that the H – bomb tested on May 11, 1998 failed.
These findings are extremely serious for the security of the nation,
particularly in the context of our pronouncement of being a nuclear weapon
power, along with our enunciated doctrine of ‘no first use’ and our
‘unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing’. They strike at the
root of our weaponisation capability and compromise our strategy of Credible
Minimum Nuclear Deterrence.
“Soon after the Pokhran-II tests, the then government almost succumbed to
the western pressure to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
backing off only at the last moment due to an outcry in the country against
doing so. The refusal of the US Senate to ratify the CTBT then released the
pressure on the government. The renewed pressure from Obama on us in recent
months to sign the CTBT is causing the issue of our signing the CTBT to be
raised again. We strongly urge the present government to remain firm in its
opposition to our doing so as the Prime Minister has publicly assured the
nation more than once in recent months.’’ Obama has actually gone further
than trying to secure universal adherence to the CTBT, and secured a UN
Security Council Resolution urging such adherence to the Nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) also. Not signing the highly discriminatory NPT
has been an article of faith of all our governments – irrespective of hues –
since the Treaty was drawn up in 1968. The present government, we strongly
urge again, should continue that policy steadfastly, despite whatever
threats and blandishments are applied to it. Even the slightest succumbing
would convert our ‘voluntary moratorium’ into an involuntary, permanent,
cessation of nuclear weapon testing and so forever deny us our legitimate
place in the great powers’ league.
The international political and diplomatic aspects as set out in the
previous para apart, the grave situation we are in regarding our
Thermonuclear (H-bomb) Capability.
It demands resolute, speedy and comprehensive corrective action.
We are well aware of the nature, sources and scales of nuclear threats the
nation faces. To meet that threat effectively, an indepth analysis of our
real capabilities in terms of: Command & control systems, nuclear weapon
delivery systems and the types, character and numbers of nuclear weapons
needing to constitute our nuclear arsenal and the keeping of that arsenal
up-to-date, is essential – indeed acutely pressing.
To address these issues and take well informed competent and speedy
decisions instead of depending entirely on the existing bureaucracy,
administrative, military and scientific, it is essential to have the
involvement, on a continuing basis, of a wide variety of opinions and
assessments from scientists, strategic analysts and defense & diplomatic
personnel with a deep understanding of the many complex issues involved,
including the technologies needed to be developed, and the minimum timescale
in which this can be achieved.
While secrecy is crucial, an open mind and willingness to learn are equally
important. We therefore, strongly urge the government to immediately set up
a high-level, independent, broad- Based Panel of Experts to define and
monitor the implementation, on a continuing b sis, of an effective course of
action, in the realm of thermonuclear weapons, so central to our national
security.
All of us have worked on different aspects of this problem with a sound
understanding of the harsh ground realities and the immense magnitude of
what is at stake. It is now for the government to take the call – and
without losing a minute more – as its counterparts in our adversaries have
and are continuing to do so.

Signatories to the statement

# P K Iyengar, former Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, Director BARC and a
key architect of the Pokhran I nuclear test of May 18, 1974 and
internationally acknowledged as India’s top nuclear weapons expert;

# A N Prasad, former Director, BARC and Member (R&D) of the Atomic Energy
Commission, a Senior Adviser on nuclear weapons to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna for many years and a key member of our original
weapons grade plutonium extraction technology development dating back to
1960;

# A Gopalakrishnan, former key expert in our Advanced Technology Vehicle
(ATV) project, which developed the nuclear submarine Arihant and former
Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board,

# A D Damodaran, former Director, Special Materials Plant, Nuclear Fuel
Complex and former Director, Regional Research Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram,

# S R Valluri, former Director, National Aerospace Laboratory and first
Director General of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the
organisation specially set up to design and develop the Light Combat
Aircraft – Tejas;

# Brigadier M R Narayanan former Director, Army Radio Engineering Network,
Ministry of Defense; K S Jayaraman, formerly Nuclear Physics Division, BARC,
Science Correspondent of the PTI for many years, Science Correspondent for
South Asia for leading international journal ‘Nature’ and President Indian
Science Writers Association.

The evidence marshaled by Dr. BB Lal is emphatic. (B.B. Lal, 2008, Rama: his
historicity, mandir and Setu: evidence of literature, archaeology and other
sciences, New Delhi, Aryan Books International.)

There were temples below the structure where Babari dhaancha stood.

The chapter in BB Lal’s book is titled: ‘Was there a temple in the
Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid?’
See the vivid photos and read the remarkable Chapter II of BB Lal’s work URL
reference: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Chapter-2ayodhyabblal

BB Lal’s summing up is emphatic and unambiguous, expressed in anguish, but
in subdued tones: “The evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in
respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya
preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no
further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a
certain category of historians and archaeologists – and others of the same
ilk – is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite
of them the truth has revealed itself.”

kalyanaraman

Govt. should file affidavit in SC: Swamy.

December 11, 2009.

*Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party. *

The Report of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, unwittingly and
ironically, supports the VHP’s case for a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

In Chapter 15 (Recommendations), Page 978, Para 176.5, the Commission
states: “…..The question whether a structure was a temple or a mosque can
only be answered by a scientific study by archaeologists, historians and
anthropologists.” This is precisely the VHP’s stated position for the last
25 years.

The Allahabad High Court on VHP’s petition in the year 2002 got
extensive investigation done at the disputed site through scientific GPR
Survey and archaeological excavations. Vide orders, dated August 01, 2002
and October 23, 2002, the High Court Bench asked the Archaeological Survey
of India (ASI) to carry out Ground Penetrating Radar Survey/Geo-radiology
Survey (GPR) of the disputed land, so as to ascertain possibility of proof
of remnants of some earlier structure. In compliance of these orders, the
ASI, with the help of Tozo Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. undertook this
exercise.

The High Court thereafter *suo moto* passed a detailed order on March
05, 2003, issuing a commission to ASI to investigate into the matter by
excavating the relevant area of the disputed land. The ASI took about five
months in carrying out the excavation work and thereafter submitted a bulky
report in two volumes together with 45 site notebooks, 12 albums containing
329 black & white photographs, 28 albums having coloured photographs, 11
video cassettes, 6 DVD cassettes, registers of pottery, unsealed bones,
architectural objects stored in tin-shed at the excavated site, individual
list of 9 boxes containing bones, glazed wares, antiquities, day-to-day
registers, antiquity register etc., etc..

In this excavation report (Ayodhya 2002-03, Vol.1 text, Chapter-X,
Summary of Results, Page Nos. 268-269, 270, 271 and 272), the ASI states in
the last paragraph: “…….Now viewing in totality and taking into account the
archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed
structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from 10th Century
onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the
yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine
couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, Amlaka,
Kapotapali, Door Jamb, and semi-circular plaster, broken octagonal shaft of
black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having Pranala (water
chute) in the North, 50 pillar bases in association of a hue structure, *are
indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with
the temples of North India.**”*

Other observations of the Liberhan Commission too support the VHP case
for a Rama temple at the disputed site:

Para 9.1: “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birthplace
of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical
city.”

Para 9.2: “Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life,
culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a
peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants,
monks, travelers, tourists.”

9.4: “Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram
believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The
place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers,
pilgrims, sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith.”

9.5: “This place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth
place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the
past with the present & the future, this religious fervour had kept the town
for centuries alive after successive rulers had gone by”.

Page 25, Para-10.3: “On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a
population of about 2,10,000. It has large number of temples mostly
dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu.”

Page 26, Para-10.10: “The town is currently inhibited (sic) (means
inhabited!) with a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims,
Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population
is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations.”

Page 29, Para 12.1: “There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines,
tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area:
rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”

Paga 32, Para 12.12: “The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya
town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed
structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi
in his statement with no contradiction.”

Hence, since the Union Government has accepted the Liberhan Commission
Report and this Report, read with the Supreme Court’s 1994 Constitutional
Bench judgment in the Farooqui case, that a mosque *is not an essential part
of Islam *but a facilitation center for reading of namaz, hence any
government can acquire any mosque for a public purpose and even demolish it,

I demand therefore the Government file an affidavit in the Supreme
Court declaring that it will acquire the disputed area in Ayodhya and hand
it over to the sants and sadhus associated with the VHP enable Hindus to
organize a Rama temple restoration at the original birth site of Lord Rama.

The UPA government led by Sonia Gandhi with spokespersons like P. Chidambaram may get away with their half-truths and avoiding the core issue of Rama Mandiram in Ayodhya, by claiming that the issue of rebuilding Shri Rama Mandiram in Ayodhya is subjudice. Maybe subjudice, but it does not prevent the citizens of India from asserting the evidence about two destroyed Hindu temples by muslim jihadists, an area where the Babari dhaancha was later built.

The evidence marshaled by Dr. BB Lal is emphatic. There were temples below the structure where Babari dhaancha stood.

It is a travesty of justice that the justice system in Hindusthan is still dithering and not rendering justice to the Hindus who demand the building of Rama Mandiram at Ayodhya. There is no bar in Sharia law to relocate masjids, even assuming that Babari dhaancha was a masjid. Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries do such relocations of masjids on a regular basis.

This is Appendix II referred to in Chapter II of BB Lal’s book. The chapter is titled: ‘Was there a temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid?’ Read http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19263282/ayodhya2 Chapter II of BB Lal’s work

His summing up is emphatic and unambiguous, expressed in anguish, but in subdued tones: “The evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a certain category of historians and archaeologists – and others of the same ilk – is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite of them the truth has revealed itself.”

Is it worth the effort to debunk a self-styled historian who says 1. that Lord Indra is ‘rowdy and amoral’; 2. that the God Krishna has a ‘rather questionable personal record.’; 3. that Lord Shiva is just ‘a development of phallic cults.’; 4. that bhakti is just the reflection of ‘the complete dependence of the serfs or tenants on the landowners in the context of Indian feudal society’. This Marxian view of history lead historians of the ilk of DN Jha to a pathetic, perverted state requiring only psychiatric help. Anyway, Arun Shourie has demolished the bogus interpretative frauds perpetrated by DN Jha in the name of history.

Sitaram Goel has analysed the state of communists writing Indian history.

The following extracts from Arun Shorie’s and Sitaram Goel’s books speak for themselves and expose the historian ilk of the DN Jha type:

THE DOUBLE SPEAK ON THE “INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH” (ICHR)
INTRODUCTION

1. “In JUN-JUL, 1998, progressives kicked up quite a racket. The government has packed the ICHR with pro-Ram-Mandir historians, they shouted. It has surreptitiously altered the aims and objectives of the Council, they shouted.” AS IS THEIR WONT,THEY SPARKED THE COMMOTION BY GIVING WIND TO A CONCOTION. As is their wont too, THEY WERE CHARGING OTHERS WITH ‘planning’ to do in‘some undefined future’what they had themselves been actually doing for decades- that is WRITE HISTORY TO A PURPOSE”

2. “The commotion led me(ARUN SHOURIE) to look into their record-to look at what they had made of an institution like the ICHR, and to read textbooks they had authored. They have used them to have a COMFORTABLE TIME, of course. They have used them to puff up each other’s reputations, of course. But the worst of it is that they used THEIR CONTROL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS TO PERVERT PUBLIC DISCOURSE, AND THEREBY DERAIL PUBLIC POLICY.”

3. “ They have made out India to have been AN EMPTY LAND- filled by successive invaders. They have made present-dayIndia, AND HINDUISM more so, OUT TO BE A ZOO- AN AGGLOMERATION OF ASSORTED DISPARATE SPECIMENS. NO SUCH THING AS ‘INDIA’, just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British, NO SUCH THING AS HINDUISM,just a word used by the Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the COMMUNALISTS to impose a uniformity- THAT HAS BEEN THEIR STANCE. For this they have BLACKENED THE HINDU PERIOD OF OUR HISTORY, AND, STRAINED TOWHITEWASH THE ISLAMIC PERIOD.They have denounced ancient India’s social system as the epitomy of oppression, and MADE TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGIES OUT TO BE EGALITARIAN AND JUST. They have belittled OUR ANCIENT CULTURE AND EXAGGERATED SYNCRETISTIC ELEMENTS which survived and made them out to have beenAN ENTIRE CULTURE, THE COMPOSITE CULTURE, as THEY CALL IT. AND ALL THE WHILE THEY HAVE TAKEN CARE TO HIDE THE CENTRAL FACTS ABOUT THESE COMMON ELEMENTS IN THE LIFE OF OUR PEOPLE: THAT THEY HAVE SURVIVED IN SPITE OF THE MOST STRENUOUS EFFORTS SPREAD OVER A THOUSAND YEARS OF ISLAMIC RULERS AND THE ULEMA TO ERASE THEM, THAT THEY HAVE SURVIVED IN SPITE OF SUSTAINED EFFORTS DURING THE LAST ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF MISSIONARIES AND BRITISH RULERS TO MAKE US FORGET AND SHED THESE ELEMENTS, THAT THESE ELEMENTS HAD SURVIVED THEIR EFFORTS TO INSTEAD INFLAME EACH SECTION TO SEE ITS ‘IDENTITY’ AND ESSENCE IN FACTORS WHICH, IF INTERNALISED, WOULD SET IT APART. Most of all, these INTELLECTUALS AND THE LIKE have completely diverted public view from the activities in our day of organizations likeTABHLIGI JAMAAT and the CHURCH which are exerting every nerve, and deploying unaccounted resources to get their adherents to discard every practice and belief WHICH THEY SHARE WITH THEIR HINDU NEIGHBOURS.”

4. “ These intellectuals and their patrons have worked a DIABOLIC INVERSION: the inclusive religion, the pluralist spiritual search of our people and land, they have projected as INTOLERANT, NARROW-MINDED AND OBSCURANTIST; and THE EXCLUSIVIST, TOTALITARIAN, REVELATORY RELIGIONS AND IDEOLOGIES- ISLAM, CHRISTIANITY AND MARXISM-LENINISM-THEY HAVE MADE OUT TO BE THE EPITOMES OF TOLERANCE, OPEN-MINDEDNESS, DEMOCRACY, SECULARISM!” THAT,IS THEIR CRIME!

THE DOUBLE-SPEAK ON ICHR

AND

THE MEDIA SPIN

THE OLD AND NEW PALL-BEARERS

5. “ ‘RATIONAL vs NATIONAL’, screamed the headline of the new pall – bearer of secularism, the magazine OUTLOOK. Fresh evidence available with OUTLOOK reveals that NOT ONLY has the ICHR beenpacked with sympathizers, the story announced, but a new statement of objectives or resolution has been added, changing certain key words from the original Memorandum of Association of 1972, legitimized by an Act of Parliament. While the original Memorandum of Association states that ICHR’s aims would be to give ‘rational’( please MARK this word, as it assumes importance as this narrative progresses)direction to historical research and foster ‘ an objective and scientific writing of history’, the new resolution, which will be included in theGAZETTE of INDIA, states that ICHR now seeks to give a ‘national’( please mark this word also!)direction to an ‘objective and national presentation of history’. So, ‘RATIONAL’ has been CHANGED TO ‘ NATIONAL’, and ‘SCIENTIFIC’ too has been CHANGED TO ‘NATIONAL’—-.” (MY COMMENT: WELL DONE MR. (SECULAR) VINOD MEHTA)

‘ Apprehensions of this kind ( that the fabled SANGH PARIVAR is out to rewrite history) have been substantiated by a related decision. The resolution by the Ministry of Human Resources Development- nodal Ministry under which the ICHR comes- that details new nominations carries with it an amendment to the Memorandum of Association by which the ICHR was set up; while the institution was set up ‘ to foster objective and scientific writing of history such as will inculcate an informed appreciation of the country’s national and cultural heritage’, the new Government’s mandate is that ICHR will give a ‘NATIONAL DIRECTION’ to an ‘OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’. This amendment is certainly NOT JUST A MATTER OF SEMANTICS. Instead, one can clearly see in this AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE BJP-LED GOVERNMENT TO REWRITE HISTORY’—-.( MY COMMENT:THUS SPOKE MOUNT ROAD MAHA VISHNU!! AS THIS NARRATIVE PROGRESSES THE READER WILL CLEARLY SEE THE ‘FRAUD’ PERPETRATED ON THE CITIZENS BY THE SECULAR ENGLISH MEDIA!! THE 21STCENTURY ‘PALL-BEARERS’ OF SECULARISM!!)

7. “ The next issue of the CPI (M) mouthpiece PEOPLE’SDEMOCRACY , reproduced this editorial! (MY COMMENT: of THE HINDU- ANY WONDER THEN DR. KOENRAAD ELST CALLS THE HINDU-A COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER AND THE FRONTLINE A MARXIST PUBLICATION!!) And carried with it an Article by ONE OF THE RING LEADERS, K. N. PANIKKAR. ‘SAFFRONISATION of HISTORICAL RESEARCH’, proclaimed the heading. Panikkar repeated the charge of the word ‘RATIONAL’ having been replaced by ‘NATIONAL’. He added another: the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR mentions five objectives, he said, but the RESOLUTION PUT OUT BY THE SAFFRON BRIGADE MENTIONS ONLY TWO.” (MY COMMENT: PLEASE NOTE THIS ALSO- 5 BECOMES 2!!)

8. SUMMARY OF THE ‘SECULAR’ CHARGE SHEET!! “ Thus

the charge rested on three bits of ‘evidence’: that the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR had BEEN CHANGED; SECOND- that a WORD- ‘RATIONAL’- in the Resolution announcing the new members of the ICHR had been SURREPTITIOUSLY replaced by another WORD-‘ NATIONAL’; THIRD- that while the original Memorandum of Association had specified five objectives for the ICHR, the new Resolution CUT OUT THREE of these.” (MY COMMENT: THE GREAT INDIAN ROPE TRICK-FIVE TO THREE!!)

SHOURIE’S INVESTIGATION.

9. “ Having been educated by THE HINDU that the ‘nodal ministry’ for the matter was the Ministry of Human Resources Development, I (SHOURIE) rang up the SECRETARY of that Ministry. Has the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR been changed?, I asked.NO, he said. IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, he said.”

10. And what of the WHODUNIT MYSTERY- RATIONAL BEING CHANGED TO NATIONAL?!! SHOURIE writes. “ I have before me the statement of the Ministry of Human Resources Development ( NO: F-30-28/86-U3) Dated 06 OCTOBER 1987, THAT IS ELEVEN YEARS AGO. It gives the text of the Resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members- announcing, among other things, that Irfan Habib is being appointed as Chairman with retrospective effect from 09 SEPTEMBER 1986. The corresponding expression in it is, ‘ TO GIVE A ‘NATIONAL’ DIRECTION TO AN OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’( MY COMMENT: AND WHAT DID THE OLD AND NEW PALL BEARERS WRITE ABOVE? THE SECULAR FRAUDS!!) AGAIN. “ I (SHOURIE) have before me the statement of the Ministry of Human Resources Development ( NO: F-30-13/89-U3) dated 15 MAY 1991. It gives the text of the Resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members- announcing, among other things, that Irfan Habib is being re-appointed as Chairman with retrospective effect from 12 MARCH 1990. The corresponding expression in it is, ‘ TO GIVE A NATIONAL DIRECTION TO AN OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’. To test my hypothesis yet again, I looked for and obtained the immediately preceding statement of the Ministry. It bore the number F-30-3/94-U3 dated 08 SEPTEMBER 1994. Like the others, it furnished the text of the Resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members- announcing, among other things, that RAVINDER KUMAR, another ‘historian’ of the SAME HUE, was being appointed as Chairman with retrospective effect from 08 SEPTEMBER 1990. The corresponding expression in it was, ‘ TO GIVE A NATIONAL DIRECTION TO AN OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’ (MY COMMENT: WHAT AN HONEST AND A ‘SECULAR’ ENGLISH MEDIA WE ARE BLESSED WITH!!)

11. On a request from ARUN SHOURIE, the Secretary in theUnion Ministry of Human Resources Development, traced the RESOLUTIONS of the EARLIER YEARS-UPTO 1978. AND-EACH OF THEM CARRIED THE SAME WORDS!! (MY COMMENT: THE ‘COMMIES’ ARE INVETERATE ‘LIARS’. THAT’S THE LESSON TO BE LEARNT. I LEARNT IT MANY YEARS AGO IN THE ERSTWHILE U.S.S.R.)

12. THE CAUSE OF THE ERROR. “ The research of the Secretary and his colleagues established that- to reproduce the word of the Secretary used- the whole mystery had arisen from a

‘ TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR’: some typist banging away on his typewriter some TWENTY YEARS AGO typed ‘RATIONAL’ as ‘NATIONAL’! As each typist, when asked to type the subsequent Resolution,COPIED THE PRECEDING ONE, THAT WORD CONTINUED TO BE TYPED AS ‘NATIONAL’ YEAR AFTER YEAR!! THE LEFTISTS INFERRED NO CONSPIRACY. But lo and behold, now that a BJP Government was in power, inferring conspiracies- to use their favourite phrase- WAS A HISTORICAL NECESSITY. IT WAS OBJECTIVE HISTORY! IT WAS PROGRESSIVE METHODOLOGY!!

13. THE RESPONSE OF OUR ‘SECULAR’ AND HONEST(?)

EDITORS.!! “ I (SHOURIE) rang UP Vinod Mehta, the Editor of OUTLOOK and PRESIDENT OF THE EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA. ‘ But the reporter says she has the text and everything,’ he said. I narrated what I had found. He promised to check and get back to me. When we talked again he said he had sent me the text of the Resolution. BUT THAT WAS THE CURRENT ONE. My point had been that the ‘change’ on which OUTLOOKhad built its story had existedin all the Resolutions for at least TWENTY YEARS. HE SAID HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME. HE NEVER DID. NOR DID THE SENIOR JOURNALISTS OF TWO OTHER PUBLICATIONS THAT HAD BUILT THEIR STORIES ON THE FABRICATION, AND WHO, AFTER I REQUESTED THEM TO ASCERTAIN THE BASIS OF THEIR ACCOUNTS, HAD PROMISED TO GET BACK TO ME.”( MY COMMENT: THE SECULARISTS LIE THROUGH EVERY PORE IN THEIR ANATOMY!!)

14. AND WHAT OF ‘FIVE’ BECOMING ‘TWO’? “ The exact same thing held for THE FABRICATION of K.N. PANIKKAR: about five objectives having become two. In every single one of the Resolutions- including the 1994 Resolution under which PANIKKAR had himself been nominated to the ICHR, a Resolution he can find printed at page 32 of the GAZETTE of INDIA, 22 OCTOBER 1994, THE EXACT SAME SENTENCES HAD BEEN USED: ONLY THOSE OBJECTIVES HAD BEEN MENTIONED AS WERE MENTIONED IN THE RESOLUTION ISSUED IN 1998!!! And another thing: If an RSS publication publishes even an interview with me (SHOURIE), that is further proof of my being COMMUNAL; but so tough are the hymen of these progressives that, even when they contribute signed Articles to publications of the Communist Party, THEIR VIRGINITY REMAINS INTACT.”

THE OTHER CHARGE- ICHR PACKED WITH ‘RAM BAKHTS’!!

15. “ The associated charge, repeated in the OUTLOOK and all the other publications, was that historians who had now been nominated to the ICHR were the ones that supported the proposition that there had been a Ram-temple at Ayodhya before it was replaced by the Babri Mosque. Assume that the charge was entirely correct. What about the members who had NOT BEEN RE-NOMINATED? THEY WERE THE INTELLECTUAL GUIDES AND PROPAGANDISTS OF THE BABRI MASJID ACTION COMMITTEE. Not only were these ‘historians’ the advisers of the BABRI MASJID ACTION COMMITTEE, its advocates in the negotiations, they simultaneously issued all sorts of statements supporting the BABRI MASJID ACTION COMMITTEE’S case-WHICH WAS THE CASE THEY HAD THEMSELVES PREPARED! A well- practiced technique, if I may say so: THEY ARE FROM A SCHOOL IN WHICH MEMBERS HAVE MADE EACH OTHER FAMOUS BY APPLAUDING EACH OTHERS BOOKS AND ‘THESES’!!( MY COMMENT: A CLASSIC CASE OF ‘YOU SCRATCH MY BACK- I SCRATCH YOURS!!)

16. “And these very ‘historians’ are ‘cited’ as witnesses in the pleadings filed by the SUNNI WAQF BOARD in the courts which are considering the Ayodhya matter!!!

– Witness number 63: R.S. SHARMA.

– Witness number 64: Suraj Bhan

– Witness number 65: D,N. Jha

– Witness number 66: Romila Thapar

– Witness number 67: Athar Ali (since deceased)

– Witness number70: Irfan Habib (ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY)

– Witness number 71: Shireen Moosvi ( also AMU)

– Witness number 72: B.N Pandey (since deceased)

– Witness number 74: R.L. Shukla

– Witness number 82: Sushil Srivastava

– Witness number 95: K.M. Shrimali

– Witness number 96: Suveera Jayaswal

– Witness number 99: Satish Chandra

– Witness number 101: Sumit Sarkar

– Witness number 102: Gyanendra Pandey

17. “ Their deceitful role in Ayodhya- which in the end harmed their clients more than anyone else- was just symptomatic. FOR FIFTY YEARS THIS BUNCH HAS BEEN SUPPRESSING FACTS AND ‘INVENTING LIES’. How concerned they pretend to be today about the objective of the ICHR- to promote objective and rational research into events of our past! The capture of institutions like the ICHR has been bad enough, but in the end it has been a device. The major CRIME of these ‘historians’ has been this partisanship:SUPPRESSO VERI, SUGGESTO FALSI.”
CONCLUSION

18. “ But these are not just partisan ‘historians’. THEY ARE NEPOTISTS OF THE FIRST ORDER. I had documented several years ago the doings of some of them in regard to appointments in the ALIGARHMUSLIM UNIVERSITY.THEIR DOINGS IN THE ICHR WERE TRUE TO PATTERN.How is it that over twenty-five years persons from their school alone had been nominated to the ICHR? How come Romila Thapar had been on the Council four times? ( MY COMMENT: ‘COMRADE HARKISHEN SURJEET, IN HIS LATEST MISSIVE IN THE ‘PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY’, THE ONE THAT GAVE ANUPAM KHER THE ‘BOOT’. WANTS ROMILA THAPER BACK AT THE ICHR!!) Irfan Habib five times? Satish Chandra four times? S. Gopal three times?- – – The same pattern held for the post of the Chairman.”

19. And what was their response when their ‘fabrication’ was ‘nailed’? “ As unlike Shourie, who, a resident of Delhi, is a BJP M.P. from U.P.( MY COMMENT: SO WHAT? MANMOHAN SINGH IS AN M.P. FROM ASSAM!!) I am not a Member of Parliament, wrote their spokesman, Panikkar, ‘I HAVE NO MEANS TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE MNISTRY’ whether WHAT SHOURIE HAS WRITTEN IS TRUE!!!!!”( MY COMMENT: IF I AM A ‘COMMIE’- I HAVE UNTRAMELLED RIGHTS TO ‘LIE’ AND IT WILL BE CARRIED BY THE ‘SECULAR ENGLISH MEDIA’ FAITHFULLY!! BUT WHEN SHOURIE ‘NAILS’ ME I CANNOT ASCERTAIN HIS TRUTHFULLNESS!! ONLY THE ‘COMMIES’ ARE VESTED WITH SUCH A CONVOLUTED THOUGHT PROCESS!! REMEMBER THEIR PERFIDY IN ‘THE ONLY FATHERLAND’?)

20. “ A much favoured device: when caught peddling a ‘lie’, insinuate the other man is privileged!! And that, as you from the ‘toiling masses’, you cannot ascertain whether the facts he has stated are true. THEREFORE, WHAT YOU STATED MUST STAND AS FACT. Q.E.D.!!!!” (TO BE CONTINUED)

1. “ The language of ‘COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM’ started trickling into Indiasoon after the BOLSHEVIKS seized power in Russia in November 1917. ‘LEADING WESTERN SCHOLARS LIKE BERTRAND RUSSELL HAVE IDENTIFIED COMMUNISM AS A CHRISTIAN HERESY’. SMALL WONDER THEN THAT THE LANGUAGE OF ‘COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM’ IS THE SAME AS THAT OF ‘CHRISTIAN IMPERIALISM’,EXCEPT FOR THE Marxist trappings in which Lenin has disguised it. This becomes obvious when we contemplate the following features:

– FORCES OF PRODUCTION, MATURING IN THE WOMB OF HISTORY, FOUND A MATCHLESS MIDWIFE IN COMRADE LENIN, AND A FIELD FOR THEIR FULLEST FREE-PLAY IN SOVIET RUSSIA AFTER THE REVOLUTION IN 1917.

– HISTORY, WHICH HAD SO FAR BEEN A ‘HISTORY OF CLASS OPPRESSION’ AND ‘CLASS STRUGGLE’, NOW TOOK A ‘DECISIVE TURN TOWARDS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY’.

– The whole world includingIndia became a battle-ground between ‘FORCES OF FUEDAL AND CAPITALIST REACTION’on the one hand, and, ‘FORCES OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION’ on the other.

– The ‘PROLETARIAT’ in every country, including India, became part of an ‘INTERNATIONALE’ COMARADERIE’ WHICH AHD NO USE FOR ‘NATIONALISM’ IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM. (MY COMMENT: I had received on the NET from another e-group a disturbing message in the recent past. It involves the outcome of a debate in the J.N.U. The subject of the debate was “CHINA IS WRONG IN DEPICTING PARTS OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AS ITS TERRITORY”. THE MOTION WAS ‘DEFEATED’ THANKS TO THE STUDENTS FEDERATION OF INDIA (SFI) A COMMUNIST STUDENTS UNION VOTING EN-MASSE AGAINST THE ‘MOTION’. DIDN’T OUR COMRADES DO THE SAME DURING 1962?)

– History has mandated the whole earth, including India, to the ‘COMMUNIST INTERNATIONALE’, THE VANGUARD OF THE WORLD PROLETARIAT, AND IT WAS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT INTERNATIONALE’ TO PROMOTE A PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION IN EVERY COUNTRY.

– The victory of the INTERNATIONALE’ was inevitable, and its sections in different countries should endeavour to expedite the end.

– History had pronounced as outmoded all existing political, social, cultural and economic institutions in India, and the COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, a section of the COMMUNIST INTERNATIONALE’, SHOULD SMASH THEM SO THAT THE LAST VESTIGES OF FUEDALISM, CAPITALISM AND COLONIALISM WERE WIPED OUT.

– THE FEUDAL LORDS AND CAPITALISTS IN INDIA HAD CONSPIRED WITH BRITISH IMPERIALISM IN ORDER TO KEEP THE INDIAN PEOPLE ENSLAVED, AND THEY DESERVED TO BE DESTROYED TOGETHER WITH THEIR POLITICAL CONSPIRACY, – ‘THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS’.

2. “ This is not the place to tell how the CPI has functioned as a fifth-

column of Soviet Russia for nearly sixty seven years. ( FOOTNOTE: The author writes ‘ THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1984. SINCE THEN THE SOVIET UNION HAS COLLAPSED). What is relevant in the present context is that, although the COMMUNISTS have failed to consolidate any substantial political base beyond West Bengal and Kerala, the spread of the language of COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM has been phenomenal . By now, this language has become the standard language of ‘SECULARISM IN INDIA’, whatever be the names by which various political parties and factions describe themselves.”

3. “ What is still more significant, the language of COMMUNIST

IMPERIALISM operates in close cooperation with the languages of Islamic, Christian and Western imperialism and has succeeded, for the time being, in silencing or putting on the defensive whatever is still left of the language of INDIAN NATIONALISM. This becomes crystal clear when we examine the history and role of the LEFTIST LANGUAGE EVER SINCE IT INVADED India in the early 1920’s.”

Love
Jihad is real, says Kerala High Court
VR Jayaraj | Kochi
Wants law to stop forced conversions
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stated that forced conversions,
termed as Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad, and efforts for that were a
reality in the State despite the arguments by the Kerala Director
General of Police, and Union Home Department to the contrary.
Stating that the State Government had the responsibility to check
forced conversions, the court asked it to formulate legislation on the
lines of the other States.
Rejecting a petition for anticipatory bail in a Love Jihad case filed
by Shehenshah, a Muslim youth, who had allegedly forced a non-Muslim
MBA girl student of a Pathanamthitta college in the name of love, the
court said that campuses should not be turned into venues for forced
conversions through false love affairs.
Justice KT Sankaran also rejected another petition seeking a ban on the
use of the terms Love Jihad and Romeo Jihad.
Earlier, Kerala DGP Jacob Punnoose had submitted in the court that no
evidence was available to prove the existence of an organised movement
in the State, specialising in converting non-Muslim girls into Islam
through treacherous love affairs. Subsequently, the Union Home
Department told the court that it had no information of any movement
anywhere in the country specialising in such conversion methods.
Justice Sankaran also pointed out that the reports submitted by top
police officials in the State were of contradictory in nature. The DGP
had told the court that there were no “actionable” evidences to suggest
that such a conversion campaign was on in Kerala but indications of
possibility of such a programme was there. The court also said that 14
out of the 18 reports from SPs on the matter, submitted by the DGP,
were of no value or use.
However, police reports themselves had made it clear that forced
conversions through love affairs as a movement had been going on in
Kerala since 1996. The judge said that the police reports had indicated
that about 4,000 conversions had taken place through love affairs in
the past four years, and 2,800 girls of other religions had undergone
conversion into Islam in this period.
He also said that 1,600 such conversions had taken place in four
northern districts, including Malappuram, Kerala’s Muslim-majority
district. It was evident from the report submitted by the DGP that
outfits like Islamist Popular Front of India (earlier NDF) and its
student wing, the Campus Front, were behind the organised campus-based
conversion programme, said Justice Sankaran.
He added that the DGP’s report had also indicated that Muslim
conversion centres had been functioning in Kozhikode district.
Though the Constitution guaranteed equal rights to all religions, the
right for faith should not be used for forced conversions and
conversions through treachery, the judge said. Mixed marriages could be
promoted but such marriages should not be used as tools for forced or
treacherous conversions, he pointed out.
He also said that several other States had formulated legislations for
preventing forced conversions and the people and the Government of
Kerala should consider formulation of such legislation in view of the
particular context.

[On 9 December 1992, three days after the historic demolition of the Babri Masjid, Girilal Jain wrote a seminal piece in The Times of India, which silenced all intellectual opposition or exposed that there was no legitimate intellectual argument against this spontaneous decision by nameless and faceless Ram bhaktas.

As a media hostile to Hindu concerns again debates the relevance of the Rama Mandir movement in the wake of the leaked/released Liberhan Commission Report, it is obvious that much has changed in the 17 years since that fateful December.

The Babri demolition represented free India’s first decisive step to reject what she could not endorse. Stuck for five centuries like the poison in the throat of Neelkanth, the Babri structure was never accepted by Hindu society. The struggle to reclaim this sacred space continued doggedly for centuries, and much Hindu blood was sacrificed; even one year before the demolition, kar sevaks fell to the bullets fired by the Mulayam Singh Yadav regime. 6 December 1992 was a logical response to that bloody affront.

Post-Babri polity rushed to appease Muslims, and denied voice to the simultaneous brutal expulsion of Kashmiri Hindus from home and hearth. But events took the Muslim world on a trajectory of confrontation with the rest of the world. Personally I believe Islam is one of the worst victims of western colonialism. But Islam has only itself to blame – its rulers subordinate land, resources and self-respect before Western capitals for false power – and Islam allows itself to be manipulated to attack soft targets like Hindu India, rather than confront its real tormentors.

Islam has inevitably run into a dead end. It is not a viable political force anywhere in the world today. Pakistan was a Western manipulation, coming heavily unstuck, and Hindu fear of jihadi warriors is non-existent except among the effete political elite.

Hindus will not compromise on the Ram temple. The era of attempting to present evidence (under Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar), negotiating (P V Narasimha Rao appointed mediators), is over. Some say they await a court verdict, but Hindu society unequivocally rejects a verdict against the Ram Mandir. As sugarcane farmers effectively demonstrated recently in New Delhi, Hindu public opinion has a way of making itself obeyed.

Mahakala, the deity Time, has again showed His face, appropriately at a moment when once again a shameless surrender of the Kashmir Valley was being contemplated by an unrepresentative regime, only to waver in the face of sharp differences among the separatists and secessionists.

The Supreme Court directed archaeological excavations at Ayodhya, during the Vajpayee regime, have thrown up conclusive evidence about the existence of two Hindu temples below the Babri structure. So a court judgment that does not respect the Hindu claim to the site will be laughed out of court. The leakage of the Liberhan Commission Report to the media, allegedly to break opposition unity in Parliament on pressing problems facing the nation, has performed the same role as unlocking the Ayodhya temple gates did under Rajiv Gandhi – it has brought the civilisational issue to the fore, and that too, at a time when the world has lost patience with the Armies of Allah.

If Rajiv Gandhi was perceived as a man without knowledge, feeling or understanding of religion, the Italian-born Congress president Sonia Gandhi will not receive such a benefit of doubt. Her daughter is married to a Christian, and her son for years moved around with a South American Catholic. The family’s alienation from the nation’s Hindu ethos – emphasised by measures like trying to secure reservations for Christian and Muslim converts via the Ranganath Mishra Commission Report – will polarise Hindu opinion in favour of the temple when they are forced to resist it.

Girilal Jain was one of the rare Hindu intellectuals who stood by the Rama Janmabhoomi as a movement of Hindu affirmation and quest for civilisational identity. He stood equally and sincerely for the beleaguered Kashmiri Pandit community, at a time when it was politically incorrect to do both. He died on 19 July 1993. As the Hindu quest for Sri Rama’s birthplace springs to life again thanks to Justice Liberhan, we republish Girilal Jain’s seminal article for the new generation of Hindusthan. Much has changed, much remains the same – Editor]

………………….

Ayodhya: A Historical Watershed

Girilal Jain

1992 will doubtless go down in Indian history as the year of Ayodhya. This is so not so much because recent events there have pushed into the background all other issues such as economic reforms and reservations for the ‘other backward castes’ as because they have released forces which will have a decisive influence in shaping the future of India.

These forces are not new; they have been at work for two centuries. Indeed, they were not even wholly bottled up. But they had not been unleashed earlier as they have been now. It is truly extraordinary that the demolition of a nondescript structure by faceless men no organization owns up should have shaken so vast a country as India. But no one can possibly deny that it has. These forces in themselves are not destructive even if they have led to some violence and blood-letting. They are essentially beneficent. They shall seek to heal the splits in the Indian personality so that it is restored to health and vigour.

Implicit in the above is the proposition that while India did not cease to be India either under Muslim or British rule despite all the trials and tribulations, she was not fully Mother India. And she was not fully Mother India not because she was called upon to digest external inputs, which is her nature to assimilate, but because she was not free to throw out what she could not possibly digest in the normal and natural course, This lack of freedom to reject what cannot be assimilated is the essence of foreign conquest and rule. The meaning of Ayodhya is that India has regained, to a larger extent than hitherto, the capacity to behave and act as a normal living organism. She has taken another big step towards self-affirmation.

All truth, as Lenin said, is partisan. So is mine. I do not pretend to be above the battle, or, to rephrase Pandit Nehru, I am not neutral against myself. But partisan truth is not demagogy and patently false propaganda, which is what advocates of ‘composite culture’ have engaged in. Two points need to be noted in this regard.

First, no living culture is ever wholly autonomous; for no culture is an airtight sealed box; Indian culture, in particular, has been known for its catholicity and willingness to give as well as take. It withdrew into a shell when it felt gravely threatened and became rigid; but that is understandable; indeed, the surprise, if any, is that Indian culture survived the Islamic and Western onslaught at all.

Secondly, a culture, if it is not swallowed up by an incoming one, whether by way of proselytization or conquest or both, as the Egyptians and Iranians were by Islam, or if it is not destroyed as the Aztec was by the Portuguese and the Spaniards, must seek to recover; even Indians in Latin America have not given up the effort. Surely, since no one can possibly suggest that Indian culture was either swallowed up or destroyed; it is only natural that it should seek to recover its genuine self. Surely, this is neither an anti-Islamic nor anti-Western activity.

Pandit Nehru almost never used the phrase ‘composite culture’. His was a more organic view of culture and civilization. He believed in, and spoke of, cultural synthesis which, if at all, could take place only within the old civilizational framework since Islam did not finally triumph. Pandit Nehru also wrote and spoke of the spirit of India asserting itself again and again. Surely, that spirit could not be a composite affair. In the Maulana Azad memorial lecture (mentioned earlier) he also spoke of different cultures being products of different environments and he specifically contrasted tropical India with the deserts of Arabia. He even said that a Hindu-Muslim cultural synthesis had not been completed when other factors intervened. Apparently he was referring to the British Raj.

This should help dispel the impression that the Nehru era was a continuation of alien rule intended to frustrate the process of Indianization of India. This charge is not limited to his detractors. It is made by his admirers as well, though, of course, indirectly and unknowingly. They pit secularism against Hinduism which is plainly absurd. Hindus do not need the imported concept of secularism in order to be able to show respect towards other faiths. That comes naturally to them. For theirs is an inclusive faith which provides for every form of religious experience and belief; there can be no heresy or kufr in Hinduism.

For Nehru, secularism, both as a personal philosophy and state policy, was an expression of India’s cultural-civilizational personality and not its negation and repudi­ation. Secularism suited India’s requirements as he saw them. For instance, it provided an additional legitimizing principle for reform movements among Hindus beginning with the Brahmo Samaj in the early part of the nineteenth century. It met the aspirations of the Westernized and modernizing intelligentsia. Before independence, it denied legitimacy to Muslim separatism in the eyes of Hindus, Westernized or traditionalist. If it did not help forge an instrument capable of resisting effectively the Muslim League’s demand for partition, the alternative platform of men such as Veer Savarkar did not avail either. After partition, it served the same purpose of denying legitimacy to moves to consolidate Muslims as a separate communalist political force.

Pandit Nehru’s emphasis on secularism has to be viewed not only in relation to the Muslim problem which survived partition, but it has also to be seen in the context of his plea for science and of India’s need to get rid of the heavy and deadening burden of rituals and superstitions, products of periods of grave weakness and hostile environment when nothing nobler than survival was possible. Seen in this perspective, the ideologies of socialism and secularism have served as mine sweepers. They have cleared the field of dead conventions sufficiently to make it possible for new builders to move in. Sheikh Abdullah exaggerated when he charged Pandit Nehru with Machiavellianism, but he was not too wide off the mark when he wrote in Aatish-e-Chinar that Nehru was “a great admirer of the past heritage and the Hindu spirit of India…. He considered himself as an instr­ument of rebuilding India with its ancient spirit” (quoted in Jagmohan, My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1991, p. 138).

The trouble is that self-styled Nehruites and other secularists are not able to recognize that India is no longer the convalescent she was not only when Gandhiji launched his first mass movement but also when she achieved independence with Pandit Nehru as the first prime minister. The two leaders have helped nurse her back to health as have their critics in different ways. That is the implication of my observation that the energies now unleashed have been at work for two centuries.

Only on a superficial view, resulting from a lack of appreciation of the history of modern India, beginning with Raja Rammohan Roy in the early nineteenth century, can the rise of the Ramjanambhoomi issue to its present prominence be said to be the result of a series of ‘accidents’: the sudden appearance of the Ramlalla idol in the structure in 1949 and the opening of the gate under the Faizabad magistrate’s orders in 1986 being the most important. As in all such cases, these developments have helped bring out and reinforce something that was already growing — the 200-year-old movement for self-renewal and self-affirmation by Hindus. If this was not so, the ‘accidents’ in question would have petered out.

Similarly, while it cannot be denied that the RSS, the VHP, and the BJP have played a major role in mobilizing support for the cause of the temple, it should also be noted that they could not have achieved the success they have if the general atmosphere was not propitious and the time not ripe. Indeed, not to speak of Gandhiji who aroused and mobilized Hindus as no one had before him, fought the Christian missionary assault and successfully resisted the British imperialist designs to divide Harijans from Hindu society, it would be unfair to deny Nehru’s and Indira Gandhi’s contributions to the Hindu resurgence that we witness today. A civilizational revival, it may be pointed out, is a gradual, complex, and many-sided affair.

Again, only on the basis of a superficial view is it possible to see developments in India in isolation from developments in the larger world. Nehru’s worldview, for instance, was deeply influenced by the socialist theories sweeping Europe in the wake of the First World War and the Soviet revolution in 1917. By the same token, this worldview, which has dominated our thinking for well over six decades, could not but become irrelevant in view of the collapse of communist regimes in eastern Europe, and the disarray in the Soviet Union itself. This cannot be seriously disputed even on rational grounds. Intensification of the search for identity in India today is part of a similar development all over the world, especi­ally in view of the collapse of communist ‘universalism’. But if it is a mere coincidence that the Ramjanambhoomi issue has gathered support precisely in this period of the disintegration of Soviet power abroad and the decline of the Nehruvian consensus at home, it is an interesting one.

At the conscious level, the BJP, among political formations, has chosen to be an instrument of India’s cultural and civilizational recovery and reaffirmation. As such, it is natural that it will figure prominently in the reshaping of India in the coming years and decades. But others too will play their part in the gigantic enterprise. V P Singh, for instance, has already rendered yeoman service to the cause by undermining the social coalition which has dominated the country’s politics for most of the period since independence.*

When a master idea seizes the mind, as socialism did in the twenties, and as Hindutva has done now, it must usher in radical change. In the twenties and the decades that followed before and after independence, conservative forces were not strong enough to resist the socialist idea. Similarly, conservative forces are not strong enough today to defeat the Hindutva ideal. There is a difference, though, for while the socialist ideal related primarily to economic reorganization and was elitist in its approach by virtue of being a Western import, Hindutva seeks, above all, to unleash the energies of a whole people which foreign rule froze or drove underground.

When a historic change of this magnitude takes place, intellectual confusion is generally unavoidable. The human mind, as a rule, trails behind events; it is not capable of anticipating them. But it should be possible to cut through the mass of confusion and get to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter is that if India’s vast spiritual (psychic in modern parlance) energies, largely dormant for centuries, had to be tapped, Hindus had to be aroused; they could be aroused only by the use of a powerful symbol; that symbol could only be Ram, as was evident in the twenties when the Mahatma moved millions by his talk of Ramrajya; once the symbol takes hold of the popular mind, as Ram did in the twenties and as it has done now, opposition to it generally adds to its appeal.

An element of subjectivity and voluntarism, typical of a modern Westernized mind, has got introduced in the previous paragraph because that is the way I also think. In reality, the time spirit (Mahakala) unfolds itself under its own auspices, at its own momentum, as it were; we can either cooperate with it, or resist it at our peril.

Historians can continue to debate whether a temple, in fact, existed at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya; whether it was, in fact, a Ram temple; whether it was destroyed; or whether it had collapsed on its own. Similarly, moralists and secularists can go on arguing that it is not right to replace one place of worship by another, especially as long as the foregoing issues have not been resolved. But this is not how history moves and civilizational issues are settled.

Pertinent is the fact that for no other site have Hindus fought so bitterly for so long with such steadfastness as over Ramjanambhoomi in Ayodhya. There is no rational explanation for this and it is futile to look for one. All that is open to us is to grasp the fact and power of the mystery.

In all cultures and societies under great stress flows an invisible undercurrent. It does not always break surface. But when it does, it transforms the scene. This is how events in Ayodhya should be seen. The Patal Ganga, of which all Indians must have heard, has broken surface there. Human beings have doubtless played a part in this surfacing. But witness the remarkable fact that we do not know and, in fact, do not care who installed the Ramlalla idol in the Babri structure and who demolished the structure on 6 December 1992.

While almost everyone else is looking for scapegoats, to me it seems that every known actor is playing his or her allotted role in the vast drama that is being enacted. We are, as it were, witnessing the enactment of a modern version of Balmiki’s Ramayana.

* On the face of it, the contest has been, and is, between ‘communalist’ Hindus, who equate Hinduism with nationalism and ‘secularist’ Hindus who believe that India has been, and is, larger than Hinduism. In reality the picture has been made more complicated inasmuch as ‘secular’ nationalism in India has been underwritten, at least partly, by casteism. All parties have been fairly attentive to ‘caste arithmetic’. The competition, as a shrewd Congress leader once said to me, has been between ‘communalism’ and ‘casteism’.

“RAMA: HIS HISTORICITY, MANDIR AND SETU : EVIDENCE OF LITERATURE, ARCHAEOLOGY AND OTHER SCIENCES” –

BY DR. B.B. LAL

ARYAN BOOKS INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI (2008)

Thanks to Shri H. Balakrishnan for this note appended.

Kalyanaraman

“ARCHAEOLOGY COMES INTO THE PICTURE” – (pp-15)

When the Britishers left India in 1947, there was an yawning gap in our knowledge of ancient Indian history. We had at one end of the scale the Harappan Civilization which, in its Mature Stage, ranged in date from circa 2600 to 2000 BCE, and on the other the period of Sodasa Mahajanapadas (Sixteen Big States) beginning around the sixth century BCE.

Archaeologically, very little was known about the intermediary period and thus it was loosely termed as the ‘Dark Age’, although there was nothing ‘dark’ about it. It was indeed a great challenge for Indian archaeologists. (pp-15)

– – – . The readers will kindly forgive me for this seemingly unwanted and long introduction. But I thought it was necessary to let the readers know how, encouraged by the results (though by no means immense) of my excavation at Hastinapura [ that established the historicity of the Mahabharata ], I embarked upon my next project, namely ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’. Though conceived while in the Survey [ASI], I could not undertake it since as the Director General almost all my time was taken up by administrative and other allied matters. It was only after my voluntary retirement from the Survey [ASI] in 1972 that I could plan to take up this project, to begin with at the Jiwaji University, Gwalior, and later with full attention at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study at Shimla. The Survey [ASI] helped me in the field work which ran from 1977 to 1986, by deputing staff of its Excavations Branch, which for most of the time was headed by Shri K.N. Dikshit..(pp-19)

“WAS THERE A TEMPLE IN THE JANMA BHUMI AREA AT AYODHYA PRECEDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
BABRI MASJID?” (pp-54)

As mentioned earlier (pp-20), excavations were carried out in the Janma-Bhumi area at Ayodhya as part of the project ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’. Of the trenches laid out in this area, one was immediately to the South of and almost parallel to the boundary wall of the Babri Masjid, the intermediary space being hardly four metres. (pp-50)

– – – . Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid there were twelve stone pillars which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings but also figures of Hindu deities (Figs. 2.3 and 2.4). It was self evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the
Masjid but were foreign to it. Since, as already stated, the pillar-bases were penetrating into the Masjid complex, a question naturally arose whether these bases had anything to do with the above mentioned pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid.(pp-55)

– – – However, since these pillar-bases raised a question about their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid, which evidently had originally belonged to a Hindu temple, these did draw public attention. The first reaction that came up from a
certain category of historians [Eminent Historians] was to deny the very existence of these pillar-bases. Their approach was simple: if there were no pillar-bases, the question of their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Babri Masjid became automatically redundant. These historians took recourse to publishing all sorts of unsavoury comments in the newspapers. However, when they were told that the pillar-bases were not someone’s fancy but their photographs (along with the negatives), taken at the time of the excavation, did exist in the photo-archives of the Excavations Branch of the ASI, they gave up their first exercise in denial, of which more would be said later. (pp-55)

– – -. Curiously, events take their own course. On December 6, 1992, the Masjid was demolished by the Kar Sevaks who had assembled in large number at the site. The demolition, though regrettable, brought to light a great deal of archaeological material from within the thick walls of the Masjid. From the published reports it is gathered that there were more than 200 specimens which included many scuptured panels and architectural components which must have constituted parts of the demolished temple. Besides, there were three inscriptions, of which two are illustrated here (Figs 2.5 and 2.6) (pp-61)

Of the above mentioned three inscriptions, the largest one is engraved on a stone-slab measuring 1.10 x .56 meters, and consists of twenty lines (Fig 2.5). It has since been published by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puruttatva No. 23 (1992-93), pp-35. (Professor Shastri, who unfortunately is no more, was a distinguished historian and a specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics). The relevant part of the paper reads as follows: ‘The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the
eleventh-twelfth century A.D. It has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance for our purpose here. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones and beautified with a golden spire unparalleled by any other temple built by the earlier kings was constructed. This wonderful temple was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala showing that Ayodhya and Saketa were closely connected, Saketa being the district of which Ayodhya was a part. Line 19 describes God Vishnu as destroying King Bali (apparently in Vamana manifestation) and the ten headed personage (ie Ravana). (pp-63-64)

The inscription makes it abundantly clear that there did exist at the site a temple datable to circa 11th-12th century CE [A.D.]. The sculptures and inscribed slab that came out from within the walls of the Masjid belonged to this very temple.(pp-64)

It has been contented by certain historians [Eminent Historians] that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed slab were brought by the Kar Sevaks from somewhere else and surreptitiously palced there at the time of the demolition of the Masjid. This contention is absolutely baseless. – – – On the other hand, a reputed journal India Today, published in its issue dated December 31, 1992, a photograph (Fig 2.7), which shows the Kar
Sevaks carrying on their shoulders a huge stone-sculpted with a long frieze, after having picked it up from the debris. (pp-64)

The above mentioned historians have also alleged that the inscription has been forged. This is behaving like the Village School Master of Oliver Goldsmith, who, ‘though vanquishedwould argue still’. So many eminent epigraphists of the country have examined the the inscribed slab and not even one of them is of the view that the inscription is forged. [Note: Emphasis as appearing in the book] Anyway, to allay misgivings, I append here a Note from the highest authority on epigraphical matters in the country, namely the Director of Epigraphy, ASI, Dr. K.V. Ramesh (Appendix II). In it he first gives a summary of the inscription, then an actual reading of the text and finally an English translation thereof. While many scholars may like to go through the Note, it maybe straightaway here that according to it this temple was built by Meghasuta who obtained the lordship of Saketamandala (i.e. Ayodhya) through the grace of the senior Lord of the earth viz Govinda Chandra, of the Gahadavala dynasty who ruled over a vast empire, from 1114 to 1155 CE. (pp-66)

In this entire context, it also needs to be added that there exist hundreds of examples, all over the country, of the destruction of temples and incorporation of their material in the mosques during the mediaeval times.For example, right in Delhi there is the Quwwatu’l-IslamMosque (‘Might of Islam’) near the Qutb Minar, which incorporated parts of a large number of temples that had been wantonly destroyed by Qutub-ud-din Aibak. Fig. 2.8 shows, standing within the mosque complex, a colonnade which was constructed by using sculpted pillars of the demolished 27 Hindu and Jain temples. This was a matter of glory for the conqueror as has been recorded by himself in an inscription still existing on inner lintel of the eastern entrance of the mosque (Fig. 2.9). Its English translation, by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, is as follows: ‘ The fort was conquered and this Jami Masjid was built in (the months of) the year 587 [1191-92 A.D.] by the Amir, the great and glorious commander of the army, (named) Qutub-ud-daulat-wa-d-din, the Amir-ul-umara Aibak Sultani, may God strengthen his helpers. The material of 27 temples, on (the erection of) each of which 2,000,000 Deliwals had been spent, were used in (the construction of) this mosque. May God the great and glorious have mercy on him who should pray for the faith of the founder of the good (building) (pp-66).

To sum up, the evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janma Bhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babri Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a certain category of historians and archaeologists – and others of the same ilk – is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite of them the truth has revealed itself. (pp-68)

———————————————————————————————————————————-
COMMENT:

Authenticating Prof Lal is this statement of Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist ( Madras Circle ) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on 15 Dec 1990 :
“ I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER.”

Muhammad went to add: “ Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Rama Temple.”

—————————————————————————————-
ABOUT DR, B.B. LAL

The blurb states:

“A world renowned archaeologist, Professor B.B. Lal was the Director General of the ASI. His excavations cover a very wide range. At Kalibangan, Rajasthan, he unearthed a prosperous city of the Harappan Civilization. The excavations at Hastinapura have established that there was a kernel of truth in the Mahabharata, even though the epic is full of interpolations. The excavations at Ayodhya have shown that the Ramayana too has a basis in history. In 1961 he conducted excavations in Egypt too.

Recently Chinese troops threatened Indian workers building a road in Ladakh. They enforced stoppage of work. The Chinese themselves are building air strips for strategic purposes on the border. China curtly dismissed Indian protests. “China has a dispute with India on the border issue. The two sides should work together to ensure peace and stability in the border area until the pending dispute is resolved,” China’s foreign ministry spokesman told the media.

The Minister of State for Defence, MMP Raju, told reporters that China was merely building infrastructure, there was nothing to worry. Home Minister Chidambaram advised the media that only after studying the Chinese response will “the government take a view”. Can capitulation be more shameless? The questions are: Why is China acting in this manner? Why is China succeeding in having its way? Let us address both questions in that order. The short answer to the first question is that China acts the way it does because of Tibet. Until it obtains total success in achieving its goal in Tibet it will not relent. Its Tibet policy has served it exceedingly well for six decades. Why should China change it? Tibet is crucial for totalitarian China. The minorities in China are roughly 8 per cent of the population. The land mass they occupy is almost one-third of China. Tibet and Xingjian are China’s two largest sparsely populated provinces. China is especially paranoid about retaining Tibet because it forcibly annexed it as recently as 1959. Thereby Tibet ceased to be a buffer between China and India, which is the only Asian state that can potentially balance China.

The annexation of an independent Tibet is irrefutably outlined in Claude Arpi’s book, Tibet: The Lost Frontier, which was published last year. Arpi, a Frenchman based in Auroville, is arguably India’s most effective communicator of the Tibetan cause. He displays the research of a scholar and the insight of a strategist. This year he has written a follow-up book, Dharamsala and Beijing : the Negotiations that Never Were, published by Lancer Publishers. The book is an eye-opener. It meticulously describes the entire farcical engagement since inception between Beijing and the Dalai Lama’s aides. It also exposes the pathetic conduct of America and India that witnessed this dialogue.

In 1947 there was no India-China border. There was only the India-Tibet border. Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai hoodwinked Pandit Nehru. From then up till now the Chinese brazenly lied, indulged in doubletalk and blandly denied self-evident truths. From then up till now India and America lamely accepted such contemptuous treatment. In 1954 India and China signed a treaty for eight years by which among other things India recognised Tibet to be part of China. Beijing violated the assurances given in that treaty by transgressing the border. A confused Nehru decided to keep Parliament in the dark. He persisted with secrecy about Chinese encroachments during the following years. That was when this reviewer through an article in 1960 demanded Nehru’s resignation. As a junior he made this reasonable demand when media doyens critical of Nehru’s China policies such as S Mulgaokar and Frank Moraes could not bring themselves to state this. No wonder it took a child to blurt that the Emperor wore no clothes! Zhou told Nehru that he was ignorant about the McMahon Line until he studied the border problem. And today China claims Arunachal Pradesh to be part of China!

Beijing and Tibet broke ice. Beijing allowed fact-finding missions from Dharamsala to visit Tibet and view its progress. The Chinese genuinely thought that better roads and infrastructure had made Tibetans happy. The frenzied reception given to the Dalai Lama’s representatives by the Tibetans stunned them. Four succeeding missions were doomed to fail. I think the Chinese fail to empathize with Tibet because Tibetans believe in God. Most Chinese don’t. In 2005 former Defence Minister, Army Chief and Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Chi Haotian, said in a speech: “Maybe you have now come to understand why we … promulgate atheism… if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us?”

Meanwhile, many rounds of border talks between India and China were also held. These talks led nowhere. The door to China was opened in February 1976. Indira Gandhi during the Emergency ignored the parliamentary resolution forbidding dealing with China until it vacated all illegally occupied territory. She established ambassadorial relations with Beijing. Why did she do this with a country that had betrayed her father and humiliated India ? Was it not simply because by that time through Kissinger’s exertions America had opened up to China?

The puppeteer could make the puppet somersault. On subsequent contacts Vajpayee, Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao needlessly kept repeating that Tibet was part of China. Claude Arpi’s book exposes the painful repetitiveness of all contacts between China and Tibet, between China and the rest of the world. Tibet was like a woodpecker trying to penetrate a block of steel. The Chinese refused to countenance the slightest change in Tibet. In 1988 Dalai Lama made the Strasbourg Proposal and adopted the Middle Way, demanding autonomy instead of independence. Beijing kept calling him a ‘splitter’. China continued to lie and deceive the world to keep talks going. Only once in 60 years did a senior Chinese official speak the truth. In 1980 CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang admitted: “Our party has let the Tibetan people down. We feel very bad!” Very soon he had to eat his words and fall in line. The world kept hoping for China to change. It was a futile hope.

Why have the Chinese succeeded in bringing the rest of the world to its knees? It is because the world is dominated by what I described in 2004 as the Real Axis of Evil comprising corporate America and China.

Arpi’s book recalls the closed door dialogues between the Americans and Deng Xiaoping when relations were thawing. The contemptuous references to India was what bonded the two sides. Kissinger was nauseatingly cloying as he sucked up to the Chinese. President Gerald Ford, not the brightest President, intervened in the talks with no impact. Ridiculing him Lyndon Johnson once said: “Ford needs both hands to find his ass!”

The architect of the evil axis on the American side was Henry Kissinger, once described widely as a war criminal but ending up as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. A little after Sino-American trade blossomed following Deng’s reforms, Kissinger Associates Inc. took birth. It was a consultancy that acted as facilitator of deals between China and corporate America. Kissinger became the central adviser for the Business Coalition for US-China Trade which has 1000 of the largest American corporations as its members. Kissinger helped set up China International Investment Corporation (CITIC), the Chinese government’s banking merchant for doing business with the US. Kissinger Associates roped in top level former officials including Alexander Haig, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, international economist Alan Stoga, and investment banker T. Jefferson Cunningham III. No wonder fierce public protest blocked Bush from appointing Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission. Kissinger was forced to back out. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Kissinger: “Kissinger Associates… has not… detailed the work it does. There is the possibility of a conflict of interest?”

Kissinger replied: “No law firm discloses its clients. I will discuss my clients fully with the counsel of the White House…” Kissinger was comfortable with the White House regardless of which administration governed America. For instance, President Obama’s trusted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for three years with Kissinger Associates before occupying his current post. Over the years Kissinger Associates has grown exponentially with a reach in all continents. Among other giants the American International Group (AIG), condemned for squandering millions as executive bonuses, is a strategic partner with Kissinger Associates. Kissinger is reputed to be one of the key benefactors of the stimulus bailout after the recent economic meltdown. Kissinger Associates is the shadowy centerpiece of corporate America and business partner of China. Totalitarian China is opaque for foreigners. But it has free access to democratic nations. It creates strong vested interest in their biggest business firms. In democracies big business influences politics. Ergo, China influences policy in democratic nations. With a five to one adverse balance of trade with China, with trillions of dollars held as US Treasury bills by China, is America in any position to confront Beijing? Why, the US dare not confront even China’s proxy, Pakistan! Claude Arpi at the conclusion of his book expresses hope that China will change. He points to individuals in China who speak the truth about Tibet, such as Phunwang, the Tibetan communist who led Chinese troops into Tibet. Subsequently he spent years in jail because he tried to faithfully follow Marxism. He was released and was invited to administer Tibet. He refused. He knew how that would end. He stayed on in mainland China. There are Chinese intellectuals like Zhang Boshu and Wang Lixiong who speak objectively and constructively about Tibet.

One begs to differ with Arpi.

China will not change unless it is compelled.

Given the Axis of Evil little hope might be placed on America. Only if India summons the will to detach itself from the coattails of Uncle Sam can China be compelled. After 1962 only once did India assert itself against China. In 1986 Chinese troops encroached into Sumdorong Chu in NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh. Army Chief General Sundarji airlifted an entire brigade in what was called Operation Falcon to counter the Chinese. Deng Xiaoping warned that China would “teach India a lesson”. War seemed imminent. Sundarji was criticized The General stood firm and was prepared to quit. The government buttoned its lip. The Chinese backed down. Today there are effective ways of calling China’s bluff to enforce its climb down without resort to military action. It is futile to outline them given a government incapable of independent action. Until India summons the will to act independently it must live with a reality that is worse than pathetic. It is tragic.